Some of them say that modern food is not as healthy as yesterday's, though science can find no lack of nutrients and, all over the world, the people eating modern crops are growing taller and living longer.
Originally posted by Joe King:
This is probably for three main reasons:
.....
[ May 20, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Forgot population control.
Although the literal Malthusian argument has been overcome many times by technological advances, the fact remains that a major reason the poorest countries cannot lift themselves out of poverty is due to the inclinations of their inhabitants to reproduce without restraint.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Lastly, and by far the largest reason, we first worlders generally dont like the idea of giving up our second SUV, our swimming pools, our DVD players and our trips to Disney World in order to help someone we've never met.
Actually this is the least significant reason. There has not been a famine in the last 50 years that was not created by man.
India is the perfect example. When I was born, India was reliant on foreign countries to provide sufficient food. Today, not only does India produce enough food for their entire population but they export food to other countries! Why the difference? Agriculture reform which allowed farmers to profit from the crops they produced. Look at all the famines that have occurred recently and you will see either war or deliberate starvation of the population.
By the way, the vast majority of the people in the first world own neither a second SUV nor a swimming pool. Perhaps this reflects your neighborhood but it certainly isn't mine.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Spot false dilemmas now, ask me how!
(If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
Originally posted by Bert Bates:
I can't back this up, but I seem to remember that there is a correlation between education for women and reduction in population growth - does this ring a bell for anyone?
Originally posted by Warren Dew:
You're right, none of my charitable contributions go towards preventing starvation in the third world. For me, quality of life is a lot more important than quantity of life; as far as I'm concerned, food aid simply encourages the expansion of a population likely doomed to lives of misery. That's not making the world a better place.
On the other hand, now that China has gotten their population problem under control, I'm very willing to preferentially purchase Chinese products and boost their economy through tourism. I'll do the same for other underdeveloped regions that show similar signs of progress.
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
My point was that the west has a huge amount of resources that could be utilised to help the third world, but we don't do it. Some of the reason is the political structure of the third world, but despite that, we all could be doing a lot more to help.
And this is where I disagree with you. The problem is not the lack of funds. Somalia is the perfect example. The famine there was caused by the collapse of the government and the establishment of local warlords who stole food from the farmers. Supplies brought in to relieve the poor were sufficient but were stolen by the warlords. The Ethiopian famine that brought us, "We Are The World" was caused by the deliberate acts of the Ethipoian government to starve people to force them to move from disputed territories. Unless you are ready to invade all these countries and establish new governments we will not be able to end famine.
Famines are no longer caused by bad weather or acts of God. That is ancient history. Today, famines are always caused by acts of men.
[ May 20, 2004: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
Helping third world countries is not just about giving them money and food. We could deploy some of our resources to try to stop corrupt governments from making so much damage to their country. In some places, such as Somalia, this has been tried and failed, but in other countries it could be a different situation. Zimbabwe is a place where the west should be putting a lot more pressure on Mugabe to sort the country out.
Originally posted by Don Stadler:
Been there, tried that. Iraq.
Pressure? Mugabe laughs at 'pressure'. The only country in a position to apply pressure (either directly or as a gatekeeper) is South Africa. And they aren't going to do it and are actively preventing anyone else from doing so.
So let 'em rot until things get so bad that even the South Africans can't stand the smell.
They sit on the UN Civil Rights Commission even while they are carrying out genocide themselves (see Sudan).
We are trying to improve the life of people in Iraq, but that wasn't the main reason for going in there. Neither were we going there to stop people starving. Iraq also isnt really a good example of the international community getting together to do something because it was only a few countries that went to war, and the war didn't have UN support.
We have to try though. Even if all our pressure falls on deaf ears, its better to try and fail to help than to just ignore the problem.
While its important to engage countries like Sudan in dialog about their human rights issues, I do agree that its a bit inappropriate for them to be on the UNCRC.
42
Originally posted by Don Stadler:
If Zaire falls into chaos and the US goes in and sorts it we'll swiftly learn that it's 'all about copper'. South Africa? 'All about diamonds'.
Members of the Security Council got together and closely cooperated to protect valuable commercial concessions granted to them by the Hussein government, and be damned to the interests of anyone other than themselves or the Baathist elite who controlled the money spigot. Let's not forget that inconvenient fact!
Why? When the response of a grateful planet is an indictment for 'war crimes'? Let Germany and Belgium sort out the next situation which arises without help from the US.
Given the current behavior of the UN I'd say it's perfectly appropriate for the likes of Cuba, Libya, and the Sudan to sit on the UNCRC. The question is whether countries like the US and Japan belong to that little 'club'. I'd say no.
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
I'm not saying emergency aid to crisis areas shouldn't go through, it should.
But any foreign aid program should focus on learning and enabling the people of the receiving nation to care for themselves, and not as is currently the case as just dumping massive amounts of money for them to use as they like.
So don't try to arouse our guilt for living like we do. Rather try to arouse the guilt of the leaders of the receiving countries for living like THEY do and not spending the aid we send them like it is intended.
Originally posted by Joe King:
Why not? Yes, the leaders of corrupt countries are largely making charity expenditure pointless, but if we put as much effort into putting pressure on their countries to be less corrupt as we do looking for missing WMD then we could make a massive difference. Saying "there's no point doing anything because the leaders are corrupt" is a bit defeatist. Even if there isn't much point giving money directly, we could do things like campaign for our governments to put try and ensure that investment in the third world goes to good causes.
42
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
For some of them under 10% of the money they receive from donations and grants actually reaches the target nation (and of that only 1% the target audience), the rest is wasted on bureaucracies and fundraisers that noone pays attention to because we've become completely immune to them for the sheer volume we're subjected to.
2) making sure the money that reaches the target countries is spent to best effect and not used to buy guns or private palaces for presidents.
42